This past Tuesday marked five years since my friend Eric Slebodnik was killed in Iraq. We were good friends from college, drawn together by a number of mutual friends, but especially James Iman. We used to all eat lunch or dinner together several times a week (among lots of other things), and we'd have vigorous discussions about a whole range of topics, from evolution to politics to where the best food on campus was and to whether the social sciences or the arts was the best way to understand what it means to be human.
Eric had more integrity and sense of purpose than almost anyone else I've ever known. Even when we disagreed, I knew that his views were shaped by a sense of principle and righteousness that still resonates with me.
We didn't stay in touch very well after I graduated in 2004 and went to find my way in the world. But the news of his death hit me like a ton of bricks. Eric wasn't the first friend I had lost, but the others were accidents. The maliciousness of Eric's was entirely different.
I've gone back and forth on the wisdom of this conflict. In winter 2002/2003 I was part of the protests opposing the U.S. invasion (but was turned off by the socialist worldview of most of the others), and organized an interdisciplinary forum at my university to help students understand the context of the situation. It couldn't have been timed better--it was scheduled to and did take place on March 20, 2003.
While studying abroad in the subsequent months, criticism directed at the U.S. from my European friends stirred up stoked my patriotism in support of the efforts. I defended it as a just war (according to St. Thomas Aquinas' criteria) in a political philosophy final even though my excellent professor John Sitton had a different view, and I even expressed this to French reporters at a 2004 election party. And after Eric was killed, I wanted desperately to believe that his sacrifice wasn't in vain and because I wanted to honor his support for the mission, which he once expressed in a letter to the NY Times editor. The impulse remains but I can't do it.
This conflict doesn't make sense. It never did. So what if they had weapons of mass destruction (which they didn't)? We deter every other country with the threat of raining Hell down on them. Why was Iraq any different?
How about promoting democracy and freedom (which the Bush administration pivoted to when no WMDs were found)? Sure, they're free of a brutal dictator, but at what cost to them in lives, injuries, displacement, the tattered social fabric, and so on? Is Iraq anywhere close to being a functioning democratic state? Have other regimes in the region improved the treatment of their citizens?
What about us? What bounty has been won by the lives lost, the soldiers wounded and maimed, the vast expenditures, and the civil liberties encroachments? Has our geopolitical position improved as the result of Operation Iraqi Freedom or are we weaker as a result?
The Iraq mission was a mistake of historic proportions. Our politicians wasted Eric's life and the lives of many others with their incompetence over foreign policy and national security.
I miss Eric. He should be teaching history or doing military intel and thinking about starting a family. It sickens me that his fate was otherwise. It always will.
R.I.P. Eric Slebodnik, August 3, 1984-September 28, 2005.
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
America Subsidizes European Welfare States
Late last week a hearty debate broke out in the blogosphere regarding whether Americans or Europeans have a higher standard of living. Paul Krugman started it, and Greg Mankiw, Dan Mitchell, and many others responded.
Krugman argued that European economies are no less dynamic than America's and standards of living are comparable even though social welfare spending is higher. Mitchell explodes the idea that Europeans and Americans are similarly wealthy--average American consumption is much higher--while Mankiw suggests a number of factors that may account for the differences in per capita consumption and unemployment.
My own humble contribution is merely to point out that the U.S. subsidizes Europe (and others) in at least two significant ways: defense spending and medical innovation.
In a recent paper on medical innovation published by the Cato Institute, Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad point out that America leads the world in three of four general categories of innovation--basic science, diagnostics, and therapeutics--while the fourth category of business model innovation lacks sufficient data to draw clear conclusions.
Politicians and pundits often argue that we'll fall behind if innovations don't take place here. Not so. Once an invention happens, those who have carried none of the burden of its development--the diversion of resources from production to research, the costs of many dead-ends, and the risks of failure--can take as much advantage of it as those who sacrificed for it. It's the classic free rider problem: most of the beneficiaries carry virtually none of the cost. Clearly, expanding the frontiers of knowledge and productivity is necessary for continued progress, but the costs and benefits are not evenly distributed.
And so it is with healthcare and other sectors where American innovation predominates. America's disturbing distorted health care system at least provides incentives for individuals and organizations to develop better ways of treating illnesses and promoting wellness. U.S. taxpayers and consumers foot the research bill, and Europeans and the rest of the world benefit from the disproportionately American advances.
U.S. subsidies to Europe (and Japan, South Korea, Australia, and many other places) also take the form of our picking up some of the tab for their defense. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. significantly outspends most European nations in terms of percentage of GDP, and that's with a higher per capita GDP, as noted above.
For those that spend a greater share of domestic output--Macedonia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece--I have three words by way of explanation: location, location, location.
Here are the big six: UK (2.40%), France (2.60%), Spain (1.20%), Italy (1.80%), Germany (1.50%), and Poland (1.71%). None of them are even close to the U.S.
If those are the levels that they think are appropriate given their threat environment, fine, but that seems unlikely. The United States are bordered by two gigantic oceans and two weak and friendly nations and haven't been invaded by a foreign power since the 19th century. Europe is proximate to the Middle East and Africa and has a history of continent-wide wars.
And one suspects that Europeans rightly view the 78,000 U.S troops stationed there and ongoing commitments to the NATO alliance as a signal that they don't need to fully fund their defense needs. The U.S. will be there to bail them out.
Needing to spend less on their defense permits them to spend more on social services. It's that simple.
Even if Krugman were correct about similar standards of living in Western Europe and the United States, the fact remains that the U.S. is massively subsidizing the European welfare state through our defense umbrella of that continent and by producing a disproportionately high share of the world's innovation (especially medical) here. Absent those subsidies, Europe's current 'generosity' would be unsustainable.
Krugman argued that European economies are no less dynamic than America's and standards of living are comparable even though social welfare spending is higher. Mitchell explodes the idea that Europeans and Americans are similarly wealthy--average American consumption is much higher--while Mankiw suggests a number of factors that may account for the differences in per capita consumption and unemployment.
My own humble contribution is merely to point out that the U.S. subsidizes Europe (and others) in at least two significant ways: defense spending and medical innovation.
In a recent paper on medical innovation published by the Cato Institute, Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad point out that America leads the world in three of four general categories of innovation--basic science, diagnostics, and therapeutics--while the fourth category of business model innovation lacks sufficient data to draw clear conclusions.
Politicians and pundits often argue that we'll fall behind if innovations don't take place here. Not so. Once an invention happens, those who have carried none of the burden of its development--the diversion of resources from production to research, the costs of many dead-ends, and the risks of failure--can take as much advantage of it as those who sacrificed for it. It's the classic free rider problem: most of the beneficiaries carry virtually none of the cost. Clearly, expanding the frontiers of knowledge and productivity is necessary for continued progress, but the costs and benefits are not evenly distributed.
And so it is with healthcare and other sectors where American innovation predominates. America's disturbing distorted health care system at least provides incentives for individuals and organizations to develop better ways of treating illnesses and promoting wellness. U.S. taxpayers and consumers foot the research bill, and Europeans and the rest of the world benefit from the disproportionately American advances.
U.S. subsidies to Europe (and Japan, South Korea, Australia, and many other places) also take the form of our picking up some of the tab for their defense. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. significantly outspends most European nations in terms of percentage of GDP, and that's with a higher per capita GDP, as noted above.
For those that spend a greater share of domestic output--Macedonia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Greece--I have three words by way of explanation: location, location, location.
Here are the big six: UK (2.40%), France (2.60%), Spain (1.20%), Italy (1.80%), Germany (1.50%), and Poland (1.71%). None of them are even close to the U.S.
If those are the levels that they think are appropriate given their threat environment, fine, but that seems unlikely. The United States are bordered by two gigantic oceans and two weak and friendly nations and haven't been invaded by a foreign power since the 19th century. Europe is proximate to the Middle East and Africa and has a history of continent-wide wars.
And one suspects that Europeans rightly view the 78,000 U.S troops stationed there and ongoing commitments to the NATO alliance as a signal that they don't need to fully fund their defense needs. The U.S. will be there to bail them out.
Needing to spend less on their defense permits them to spend more on social services. It's that simple.
Even if Krugman were correct about similar standards of living in Western Europe and the United States, the fact remains that the U.S. is massively subsidizing the European welfare state through our defense umbrella of that continent and by producing a disproportionately high share of the world's innovation (especially medical) here. Absent those subsidies, Europe's current 'generosity' would be unsustainable.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's Fresh Start with Iran
I've been less than impressed with President Obama's approach to economic issues, but there may be some hope for him yet on foreign policy.
CNN reports that Obama "reached out to Iran on Friday -- the start of the Iranian New Year -- in a video message offering 'the promise of a new beginning' that is 'grounded in mutual respect.'"
Of course, no one wants Iran to possess nuclear weapons--the major recent impediment to normalizing relations--but can we live with it? Do the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and nuclear arsenal represent a sufficient deterrent to bad action?
And while most people don't want a nuclear Iran, we do want a peaceful and prosperous democratic republic to emerge in the heartland of the former Persian empire.
Most of that task falls to Iran's leaders, but U.S. policymakers can make a difference.
If normalizing relations reduces their fear of U.S. military action, they'll be less likely to elect hardliners and focus on other issues, the economy first among them. Robust cultural exchange can help promote understanding and economic partnerships. Reducing trade barriers (to zero?) would enhance bilateral commerce and facilitate both of our economic growth.
Obama's on right track with Iran. Let's hope he follows through.
CNN reports that Obama "reached out to Iran on Friday -- the start of the Iranian New Year -- in a video message offering 'the promise of a new beginning' that is 'grounded in mutual respect.'"
Of course, no one wants Iran to possess nuclear weapons--the major recent impediment to normalizing relations--but can we live with it? Do the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and nuclear arsenal represent a sufficient deterrent to bad action?
And while most people don't want a nuclear Iran, we do want a peaceful and prosperous democratic republic to emerge in the heartland of the former Persian empire.
Most of that task falls to Iran's leaders, but U.S. policymakers can make a difference.
If normalizing relations reduces their fear of U.S. military action, they'll be less likely to elect hardliners and focus on other issues, the economy first among them. Robust cultural exchange can help promote understanding and economic partnerships. Reducing trade barriers (to zero?) would enhance bilateral commerce and facilitate both of our economic growth.
Obama's on right track with Iran. Let's hope he follows through.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Militant Canadians?
During a recent vacation to Canada, my wife and I were struck by the level of patriotism (or whatever connotative term you prefer) our neighbors to the north display. Our route (yes, we drove) took us past Niagra Falls, around Lake Ontario, and through western Toronto on our way to Horseshoe Valley, which lies between Barrie and Orillia.
Crossing the Rainbow Bridge between the U.S. and Canada right at Niagra Falls, one can't help but notice more Canadian flags in Niagra Falls, Ontario, than U.S. flags in Niagra Falls, New York. There are also more U.S. flags in Canada than Canadian flags in the U.S., but that's probably to attract U.S. tourist dollars. Or maybe Canadians just generally like flags more.
Travelling deeper into Ontario, we observed that Canadians seem to display their flag on their homes and businesses roughly as frequently as we 'Americans' do. (I somewhat dislike describing U.S. citizens as "Americans," since, technically, all inhabitants of North and South America can claim that title, although I consider the founding principles of the United States to be far more "American" than the populist socialism of some of our southern neighbors.)
My treetop trekking tour guide--a businessman retraining as a pilot who's having a last 'fun' summer before entering flight school--was generally supportive of the Afghanistan mission and the Canadian efforts there, despite reservations about Iraq. And while on a jog around Horseshoe Valley, I noticed a bumper sticker stating "If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Please Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them." And the truck had Ontario plates and a Canadian flag, so it wasn't a visiting U.S. citizen.
It's worth nothing that my non-U.S. basis for comparison is the time I've spent in Germany (2 weeks in Bavaria, 4 months mostly in Trier) and Austria (3 weeks in Vienna), where the inhabitants are more cautious about nationalism for historical and geographic reasons.
Overall, however, U.S. citizens still seem to express their patriotism more fervently than Canadians. Perhaps there are deeper cultural reasons, but maybe it's simply because of greater U.S. commitments abroad. Or maybe we weren't their long enough or in the right context (we didn't visit Ottawa or watch the Canadian version of C-SPAN).
In any case, it's good to see that love for country does not require excessive entanglements abroad.
Crossing the Rainbow Bridge between the U.S. and Canada right at Niagra Falls, one can't help but notice more Canadian flags in Niagra Falls, Ontario, than U.S. flags in Niagra Falls, New York. There are also more U.S. flags in Canada than Canadian flags in the U.S., but that's probably to attract U.S. tourist dollars. Or maybe Canadians just generally like flags more.
Travelling deeper into Ontario, we observed that Canadians seem to display their flag on their homes and businesses roughly as frequently as we 'Americans' do. (I somewhat dislike describing U.S. citizens as "Americans," since, technically, all inhabitants of North and South America can claim that title, although I consider the founding principles of the United States to be far more "American" than the populist socialism of some of our southern neighbors.)
My treetop trekking tour guide--a businessman retraining as a pilot who's having a last 'fun' summer before entering flight school--was generally supportive of the Afghanistan mission and the Canadian efforts there, despite reservations about Iraq. And while on a jog around Horseshoe Valley, I noticed a bumper sticker stating "If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Please Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them." And the truck had Ontario plates and a Canadian flag, so it wasn't a visiting U.S. citizen.
It's worth nothing that my non-U.S. basis for comparison is the time I've spent in Germany (2 weeks in Bavaria, 4 months mostly in Trier) and Austria (3 weeks in Vienna), where the inhabitants are more cautious about nationalism for historical and geographic reasons.
Overall, however, U.S. citizens still seem to express their patriotism more fervently than Canadians. Perhaps there are deeper cultural reasons, but maybe it's simply because of greater U.S. commitments abroad. Or maybe we weren't their long enough or in the right context (we didn't visit Ottawa or watch the Canadian version of C-SPAN).
In any case, it's good to see that love for country does not require excessive entanglements abroad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
